"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 6:24 am, Meteorologist wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:46 am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 6, 12:39 pm, Meteorologist wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:11 am, Dawlish wrote:

...
Tw+t is far worse and you are happy to throw that one out Lawrence,
because you happen to be "in a foul mood". Keep you replies within
decent bounds.You don't often lower yourself to the levels of
Crunchy's cross-posters and the occasional stalker, but you have
been
known to. Stay level headed, even when under pressure! *))
...

Excuse me; call me by my right name, please.

David Christainsen

No. It's either Crunchy, or Meteorologist. Neither is a correct
description, so I'll call you Crunchy. It's a nice nickname. The other
one is just borrowed from people that are. *))

Excuse me; good form dictates that you grant
me my request without equivocation.

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have Crunchy. I said his work was interesting, but no more. It's no
more than that, as his work predicts that during periods of low solar
output, the sun's magnetic field can't protect us from cosmic rays
which may increase cloud cover. Unfortunately current global
temperatures simply don't bear out his theory. We've had a very quiet
sun for well over 4 years now and though solar cycle 24 has started,
sunspot activity is very low.

If the sun's output is low, more clouds should have been created,
blocking more of the sun's heating and causing cooling, so why has the
world experienced such high temperatures over the last 5 years? If
Svensmark is correct, why hasn't this extended solar minimum produced
the cooling that he predicted?

Rising global temperatures, not theories, are the only measure of
whether the climate is warming.


Hmmm if you insist on calling Dave a crunchy after the honeycomb chocolate
bar, than that easily qualifies you as a Flake.